Diplomacy: Politics: News: Hankyoreh

Lee Yong-soo, a victim of Japanese military’comfort women’, is wiping tears at a press conference calling for referral to the United Nations International Court of Justice on the issue of Japanese military’comfort women’ held at the Seoul Press Center on the 16th. yunhap news

Lee Yong-soo, a victim of Japanese military “comfort women,” asked President Moon Jae-in to openly request the issue of comfort women to be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Korean-Japanese government as well as civil society and academia are watching the development of the future. It is the first time in 30 years since the first public testimony of the late Kim Hak-soon in 1991 by the late grandmother Kim Hak-soon in 1991 that a plan to resolve the’comfort women’ victim problem has been publicized through the International Court of Justice.

There has been an attempt to take the’comfort women’ issue to the International Dispute Organization for judgment. In 1994, the Korean Civil Society, including the Council on Countermeasures against Mental Problems (Jung Dae Hyup), tried to entrust the interpretation of the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement and the Japanese government’s obligations to compensate the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal (PCA) in The Hague, Netherlands. The Hague Court, unlike other international courts, can participate by individuals other than the state. At the time, the civil society of Korea and Japan formed legal advisory groups and pushed for a complaint, but the Japanese government rejected the proposal in 1995 and it was destroyed.

Unlike active civilian activities, the Korean government has not officially mentioned how to refer the’comfort women’ issue to the International Court of Justice. It is said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries internally examined related matters, but did not seriously review the policy as a matter of course. Compared to the status of the’comfort women’ problem, the referral to the International Court of Justice, which requires complex strategic considerations, cannot be an effective solution. After the’comfort women’ issue reappeared in the forefront of history with the public testimony of Kim Hak-soon in 1991, the Japanese government tried to seal the issue through the’Asian Women’s Fund’ (1995-2007), which was created through’people fundraising’. did. After the fund was established, the Korean government did not make active efforts to solve the problem. The change in the government’s attitude was after the Constitutional Court’s decision on August 30, 2011, stating that it is unconstitutional for the government to not make concrete efforts to resolve the issue of the right to claim compensation for victims of comfort women. After the constitutional decision, the government resolved issues such as differences in interpretation of whether the right to claim compensation from the’comfort women’ victims in Article 2 of the Claims Agreement or the’diplomatic route’ (paragraph 1) specified in Article 3 or the’referral to the arbitration committee’ Discussions were conducted to resolve them through (paragraph 2). The arbitration committee did not consist of a Japanese rejection. However, diplomatic consultations between Korea and Japan resulted in an agreement between the Korean-Japanese governments in December 2015 during the Park Geun-hye administration.

The Japanese government has mentioned the possibility of filing a complaint with the International Court of Justice on various issues such as Dokdo, the judgment of compensation for victims of forced mobilization, and the’comfort women’ issue, but it has not made any official proposal to Korea. In relation to Dokdo, immediately after President Lee Myung-bak’s landing on Dokdo in August 2012, the Korean Supreme Court filed a lawsuit against Shin Il-cheol Jogeum (currently Japan Steel) on October 30, 2018 in relation to compensation for victims of forced mobilization. When the prevailing ruling was ruled, Prime Minister Abe raised the possibility of referral directly. Regarding the’comfort women’, the Seoul Central District Court ruled on the 8th of last month that the Japanese government should compensate the elderly victims of comfort women by 100 million won, and then Foreign Minister Motegi Toshimitsu referred to the International Court of Justice. Put it in” he said he would review the response plan.

After meetings on the comfort women issue at the Seoul Ministry of Foreign Affairs on December 28, 2015, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se (right) and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida hold a joint press conference. Senior Reporter Kim Bong-gyu, Hankyoreh

However, when Grandma Lee Yong-soo’s specific proposal came out, both the Korean and Japanese governments are showing a cautious appearance. The Korean government is in a position to “listen a little more about the position of the comfort women’s grandmother, etc.” and “carefully examine the issue of filing a complaint at the International Court of Justice.” The Japanese government also responded by saying, “I don’t know what intentions and thoughts I was talking about, so I try to refrain from commenting.” Until now, the Japanese government has neither acknowledged nor actively denied that the’comfort women’ system was a crime under international law at the time. Instead, it repeats the claim that the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement solved this problem. It is interpreted as proof that the Japanese government also has many considerations. In order to be judged by the International Court of Justice, one of the major judicial bodies of the United Nations as set out in the Charter of the United Nations, agreement between the parties to the dispute is required. Even if the Korean government decides to submit it to trial, it cannot be referred without the consent of the Japanese government. Inside and outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Japanese government is not pleased with the reigniting of the’comfort women’ issue in the international community, and considering that it is difficult to get a good response from the US administration, it is reported that the Japanese government has not tried to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice for the issue of forced labor. It is also pointed out that even if the two sides agree in a large framework to receive the judgment of the International Court of Justice, it is difficult to reach an agreement on what specific issues to take. The first thing the state should consider before conducting an international trial with other countries is’the possibility of victory’, but it seems that the government’s review process has determined that’the victory cannot be predicted’. In addition, there is no guarantee that referral to the International Court of Justice is more advantageous than arbitration under the Claims Agreement, and there is a task to prove based on solid evidence that the victims of’comfort women’ were’sex slaves’ of the forced mobilization of the Japanese military. Among the 15 surviving victims of the elderly, the number of victims who can communicate smoothly is not easy to organize consistent testimony in a situation that is among the best. There is a possibility that Japan’s claim that the problem was solved by the 1965 Claims Agreement and the 2015 Korea-Japan’comfort women’ agreement could persuade experts in international law, and that Japan’s actions were illegal based on international law, not the current human rights law. The possibility of not being judged cannot be ruled out. This is why government officials responded that there is “almost no possibility” to be referred to the International Court of Justice at this stage.

At a press conference on the 16th, Lee Yong-soo said, “I have done everything I can so far.” “There is no way anymore. Ask our government to reveal Japan’s sins through international law. He appealed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to be judged so that Japan may realize and reflect on the wrongdoing.” The’comfort women issue of the Japanese military commission referred to the International Court of Justice Promotion Committee’ (hereinafter referred to as the Promotion Committee) issued a ruling in the Seoul Central District Law in January that the Japanese government recognized that the Japanese government is the subject of the’comfort women’ system. He suggested that he go to the prestigious International Court of Justice, saying, “I do not recognize the legitimacy.” In addition, the reason was that it was difficult to expect a relief for victims’ human rights such as acknowledging Japan’s true legal responsibility and reflecting history education, as the ruling was “just ordering monetary compensation.” Dr. Hee-Seok Shin (International Law), who was in charge of legal review of the Promotion Committee, acknowledged, “It is impossible to predict (the International Court of Justice), but in reality the’comfort women’ system was legally responsible for war crimes in violation of international law at the time.” On the one hand, the right to claim personal compensation was renounced by the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement in 1965, and the Korean courts should respect Japan’s sovereign immunity.” From the Korean standpoint, the victims’ right to claim personal compensation is lost, but Japan’s legal responsibility is acknowledged, and Japan’s legal obligations such as apology and truth-finding remain. Even if they lose, he also pointed out that there is an advantage that “the data and testimony on the’comfort women’ system can be permanently left as a vast historical record as in the past (war criminal trial after World War II) in Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.” Dr. Shin said, “We have never filed a lawsuit against the ICJ, but we have a chance,” said Dr. Shin. “Japan lost in a lawsuit against the International Whaling Convention, which Australia (Australia) filed in 2014 against Japan’s unreasonable whaling. One case was cited as the case in which the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Organization (WTO) won the case of a ban on the import of Fukushima seafood in Japan in April 2019.

The 1348th regular demand demonstration held in front of the former Japanese embassy in Jongno-gu, Seoul on August 15, 2018, on commemoration day of the World Japanese Military Comfort Women. Senior Reporter Kim Gyeong-ho [email protected]

International law experts have raised concerns and questions about this approach. The victims have been demanding legal responsibility and compensation from Japan on the premise that the right to claim personal compensation remains in the claim agreement.However, if the ruling comes out as predicted by the Promotion Committee, it could be more “losing” than the judgment of the International Court of Justice. will be. Kim Chang-rok, a professor at Kyungpook National University (law), was confirmed through the International Court of Justice on the 16th that the’comfort women’ system was a crime that violated international law at the time, but the victims’ right to claim personal compensation was renounced by the claim agreement and Japan’s sovereign immunity should be respected. He feared that “the harm would be serious,” allowing the judgment. Multiple legal experts warned that if such a judgment comes out, the meaning of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling and the Seoul Central District Court ruling in January could be distorted. The two rulings are a result of the Japanese government’s assertion that it is a violation of international law due to the disapproval of the claim agreement and state immunity, and thus, the efforts it has made at home and abroad may be disregarded. It is also pointed out that the intrinsic demands of the victims’ grandmothers for active recognition of responsibility and apology from the Japanese government cannot be resolved by moving the issue to the International Court of Justice. The fact that the historical facts about the victims of’comfort women’ have already established themselves as common sense in the international community including the United Nations and limited recognition by Japan, so that it is not a step in which the facts need to be recognized through the International Court of Justice is also insisting on the International Court of Justice. It is mentioned because it is not necessary. Previously, the issue of’comfort women’ victims was △ 1994 UN International Legal Affairs Committee’s Report of’Comfort Women-Unfinished Trials’ (Japan’s moral and legal responsibility recognition) △ 1996 UN Human Rights Committee’s’North Korea and South Korea on the issue of military sexual slavery in war , Japan Dispatched Investigation Report’ (Analysis of Japanese government’s legal responsibility regarding comfort stations established during World War II by the United Nations Subcommittee on Human Rights in 1998, which concluded Japanese comfort women as “military sexual slaves”” (Mac In addition to the Doogeul Report, the Japanese government’s personal compensation and prosecution of the person in charge of establishing and supervising the “rape camp”), the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1994, 2003, 2004, 2009) urged the Japanese government to recognize responsibility and compensate for it. ), the United Nations Committee on Torture Prevention (2007), and the Civil and Political Rights Committee (2008). Another reason why government officials and many experts in international law are skeptical of referral to the International Court of Justice for disputes between Korea and Japan is the Dokdo issue. Japan has insisted on referencing the Dokdo issue to the International Court of Justice since the 1950s, and if the Korean government wants to raise issues of the past, such as’comfort women’, Japan is highly likely to insist on taking the Dokdo issue together. The blow is inevitably for the Korean government, which has not acknowledged the territorial dispute over Dokdo. At the bottom of those who saw the press conference of the promotion committee on the 16th with an eye of concern, there seems to be a regret that sufficient reviews and strategic judgments were not preceded in order to derive results that are in line with the interests of the victims. By Kim Ji-eun, staff reporter [email protected]